CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9EADC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5C2FD240 { width:44.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE07E54C1 { width:134.1pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s14A40F02 { width:97%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s5D06D948 { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FA1CD3D { width:20.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDB7C8DFD { width:30.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4731781 { width:20.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20053/06 Neslihan CÖMERT and others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   December 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 May 2006, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 September 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The case concerns the applicants’ complaint concerning the alleged contradictory decisions delivered by the domestic courts in similar cases. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The applicants complained about the contradictory decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation in similar cases. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 3 September 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. 7.     The declaration provided as follows: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay a total of 9,600 euros (nine thousand and six hundred euros) jointly to the applicants, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses that may be chargeable to the applicants with a view to resolving the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government further consider that the contradictory decisions delivered by the domestic courts without any justification for the divergence, constituted a breach of Article 6 of the Convention in the present case. This sum will be converted into Turkish Liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case before the European Court of Human Rights.   The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and to strike it out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.” 8.     By a letter of 10 October 2019, the applicants’ representative indicated that the applicants were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. 9.     The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. 10.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article   37   §   1   (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 11.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). 12.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about conflicting judgments that constitute a breach of the fair trial requirement (see, Emel Boyraz v. Turkey , no. 61960/08, §§ 72-75, 2 December 2014; Uncuoğlu v.   Turkey [Committee], no.13196/07, §§ 34-41, 5 September 2017). 13.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 14.     Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 15.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 January 2020.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Neslihan CÖMERT 1975 Turkish Kocaeli 2 Emine DİK 1972 Turkish Kocaeli 3 Sevgi KAVAK 1979 Turkish Kocaeli